Unreasonable attacks on the voices of reason

Sep 25, 2008 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
I pen this letter to laud the courage of those Guyanese at home who steadfastly refused to be cowed into silence by threats against their well being, or the transparent and sophomoric guilt trip accusations that associate their calls for manifest democracy and the rule of law with criminality.

While the former is, by all established forms of international laws and rules, frightening and reprehensible, the latter has long been a dastardly ploy of those for whom things like truth, rights, freedoms and justice, are principles of convenience.

It is indeed an indication of intellectual retrogression that arguments on behalf of those constitutional and legal guarantees that separate civilized states from those in a state of failure are now publicly being likened to “supporting criminality”.

It is also indicative of the level of hypocrisy pervasive in our society, that some of the very persons, who launched fierce criticisms against some Americans for taking this very position subsequent to 9/11 now practice exactly that which they were volubly condemning back then. George Orwell’s fictionalised revolution is manifesting itself in living colour in present day Guyana.

Members of Law Enforcement are allowed to use deadly force in the apprehension of dangerous criminals when, in this pursuit, they are attacked and can effect that arrest by no other means. The law does not advise or instruct them to shoot to kill. Neither does it instruct them to shoot to wound.

It instructs them to aim at the largest portion of the body of the target so as to avoid inadvertent injury to innocent bystanders. But the Law also demands that an inquiry follow all use of deadly force by Law Enforcement.

This is a sensible and precautionary consequence designed not only for protection of the citizenry, but also for the protection of the very ranks who might be compelled to use such force.

There are three forms of homicide under our Laws. (1) Culpable Homicide, (2) Excusable Homicide, and (3) Justifiable Homicide.

The question of which one of these the killing of a human being by another human being in our nation falls under cannot be legally determined by politicians.

It cannot be determined by those of us venting prolifically through the pages of the letter columns of newspapers. It has to be determined by the institutions set out in the Statutes governing the occurrence of Unnatural Deaths in Guyana.

And those statutes require that an inquiry be held in all instances of a death that occurs outside the care of a physician, or under circumstances not related to long illness or some medical condition.

It is through such an inquiry that a rank, who is compelled to use deadly force in the execution of his or her duty, can be absolved from criminal liability.

It is through such an inquiry that the relatives of the deceased suspects and the citizenry at large can obtain closure with the assurance that the system worked. We are not living in Deadwood Texas 1876.

The men and women who sat down and designed the Laws that encircle our human nesting recognised one important facet of human disposition and conditioning. Lord Acton coined it superbly in the observation that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

These men and women knew that alongside the enormous powers being vested in those charged with upholding and administering the law, there had to be checks and balances that protected against abuse of such power.

Those checks and balances take the form, among other things, of “the presumption of innocence of all suspects”, of “due process under the law”, of “being able to confront one’s accuser in a Court of Law, and to depose and question them as a means of defending one’s self against accusations of wrong doing, of Law Enforcement not merely being required to disclose evidence that indicts or convicts, but also evidence that absolves and acquit”.

These checks and balances were put into place with the firm conviction that more harm is likely to be done to a society if one innocent person is punished, than if 10 guilty persons were to go free.

It is the kind of trade off that can only be grasped by compos mentis examination and willingness to seek balance in the administration of justice.

Unfortunately, today there seems to be a retrogression in our society whereby both the criminals and those charged with the responsibility of administration of justice seem to be caught up in a time warp going back a couple of centuries.

And those who raise their voices in caution against this apparent retrogression are being singled out for threats and ostracization.

In closing, let me say that at this time when the consciousness of our world is focused on peace, my prayers are sincerely with all of those who were and are direct or indirect victims of the spate of violence that is inundating our society.

And I would like also to extend a prayer of hope to those who, like the biblical Rachel who refused to be comforted while her children were not, assume such identity and relationship in terms of their activism for betterment for all the people of Guyana.

The American Carter G Woodson in his work, “The Miss-education of the Negro” opined that “safety, social acceptance, comfort, all those things we take for granted as amenities from living in civilized societies, are not compatible with activism for the rights of the oppressed or the unliked in given societies”, or words to such effect.

More and more we are being forced to accept the truism in that observation, as we ourselves observe the developments on the Guyanese political and social scene.
Robin Williams

---

---